beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the Defendant was actually operating the sports center as indicated in the judgment of the court below from May 17, 2014 to October 13, 2014. During the above period, the Defendant cannot be deemed as a person who has inflicted damage on the people who used all the frequency of using sports center membership, Qcoophone, and personal PT.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.
According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, public disclosure service for the accused can be made only when the dwelling, office, or present location of the accused is unknown. Thus, in a case where the phone number or mobile phone number of the accused appears on the record, it should be viewed as an attempt to confirm and regard the place of service by contact with the above phone number.
Therefore, without taking such measures, the delivery by the method of public disclosure and making a judgment without the defendant's statement is not allowed as it violates Article 63 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
In addition, such a legal principle also applies to a case where, even though the defendant knew that the lawsuit was pending, the defendant did not report his residence to the court and thereby was not served by such reason, the court served by means of public notice service.
This is because the court's procedure for serving public notice was clearly unlawful but the defendant did not change his domicile, and the judgment based on the above illegal procedure for serving public notice is not legitimate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do12430, Jan. 28, 2010; 2017Do1036, Sept. 7, 2017). According to the records, the court below's judgment is seven times.